Re: Minimizing bufwaits

In article <vI1++AAsRSJ2EwsS@smooth1.demon.co.uk>, David Williams <djw@smooth1.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >bufwaits lokwaits lockreqs deadlks dltouts ckpwaits compress seqscans > >3005610 936 3233912260 2 0 2109 7633098 3122129 > > 3122129 sequential scans?? Are you sure that OPTCOMPIND=0 and indexes > are being used where required. That's on about 3billion transactions. It's set to OPTCOMPIND=1 Apparently indeces are where required. I'm the sysadmin, and the dba isn't much into fine tuning...I'm of the feeling, that we can always make things better :) > > To reduce bufwaits increase the number of buffers... I guess my concern is that it's possible to OVER increase buffers, but I'll have a go at 'er and see what I can do. A gentleman in .nl emailed today as well, and has offered some ideas. I'm hoping that there really is room for improvement, and that we're not just "getting full" Thanks for the quick reply. B. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own